Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They should definitely settle. No one should be surprised. The board agreed and created a contract with her, then tried to dump her based on public opinion. You may not think she was worth it, but the board did and they authorized her compensation.
I find it odd that the outrage falls soley towards King and not to the group that acted as her "boss".
While I agree that the board may have authorized compensation and bares a significant amount of blame here, I fail to see how she is justified in her claims that the board discriminated against her based on "race and gender." In her own words she is alleging that "it was too difficult to defend to the community the decision to pay a black woman so much money.” She is missing the forest for the trees here and fails to realize that it would have been too difficult to defend ANY leader of a charitable organization who received that type of compensation package, regardless of gender or race. Public confidence has been lost in the United Way in this community and that would have been true no matter who the CEO would have been.
This just makes her look even worse and if she really cares about her reputation she definitely should not have pursued this type of action. Without some earthshaking yet uncovered evidence I can't see how she would be successful here in court.
I really don't see this and I don't see how injecting race and gender into the equation is appropriate here. Do you care to elaborate?
Gloria King injected race and gender into the equation. The news is reporting that her lawsuit is based on her being fired for being a black woman. She filed an EEOC lawsuit. That injects race and gender everything.
She's so concerned about the United Way that she's willing to have them waste money on lawyers to defend themselves. This money could be going to help the less fortunate in the area.
I'm very happy that the United Way and its agencies are not getting dollar one from me this year. I don't need to support the American Bar Association with my contributions.
Gloria King injected race and gender into the equation. The news is reporting that her lawsuit is based on her being fired for being a black woman. She filed an EEOC lawsuit. That injects race and gender everything.
She's so concerned about the United Way that she's willing to have them waste money on lawyers to defend themselves. This money could be going to help the less fortunate in the area.
I'm very happy that the United Way and its agencies are not getting dollar one from me this year. I don't need to support the American Bar Association with my contributions.
Sorry, I meant to say that I failed to see how King's injection of race and gender is appropriate here, not the poster to whom I was replying. Sorry if that was unclear.
I definitely agree that the money spent on this litigation could go to better causes else where.
There are 2 ways to look at everything. If they are indeed paying the interim CEO 20K a month, that bolsters her claim. That's comparable to her annual compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk22
While I agree that the board may have authorized compensation and bares a significant amount of blame here, I fail to see how she is justified in her claims that the board discriminated against her based on "race and gender." In her own words she is alleging that "it was too difficult to defend to the community the decision to pay a black woman so much money.” She is missing the forest for the trees here and fails to realize that it would have been too difficult to defend ANY leader of a charitable organization who received that type of compensation package, regardless of gender or race. Public confidence has been lost in the United Way in this community and that would have been true no matter who the CEO would have been.
This just makes her look even worse and if she really cares about her reputation she definitely should not have pursued this type of action. Without some earthshaking yet uncovered evidence I can't see how she would be successful here in court.
There are 2 ways to look at everything. If they are indeed paying the interim CEO 20K a month, that bolsters her claim. That's comparable to her annual compensation.
Actually, I'm not sure how it helps her as it appears she was paid more. Her salary was reported to be $264,000 or 40,000 more than the current CEO. That doesn't compare to a $2.1 million pension, which drew most of the outrage for excessive compensation for a non-profit organization CEO. I don't know if the current guy is getting an expense account, but I bet its not as much as King (who reportedly received $35,000 in expenses a year as well).
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,770 posts, read 7,547,554 times
Reputation: 2118
Many people, and apparently many in Charlotte feel the United Way was excessive in their fund raising tactics. That's one thing.
The issue regarding King boils down to many people don't believe she should be paid that much money. Why? Because she's paid much more than her peers for doing a similar job. That is the issue those who are detractors can point to. It's entirely subjective and has absolutely nothing to do with the execution of her duties as CEO. Did she meet the objectives set forth by the board? Yes. Did she grow the business? Yes. Even her detractors agree that it's not that she didn't perform, it's that they simply don't think she should make all that money since it's a) a non-profit and b) UW is strong arming people. What's comical, is this metric is applied to her, but the average person won't apply that to self (I think you make to much money so give some of your salary back, and I don't care that you actually do a good job). It's called jealously, and it's not something you can argue as a point because it's based on something totally subjective. So this argument boils down to "well...I don't think someone doing non profit work should make that much money, they should work for free if they really care..."
You tell me where this is a situation that someone should be terminated. Okay, you do the job you were tasked to do, you've exceeded expectations, and you're compensated according to a mutually agreed upon contract (UW was not strong armed). On Friday your board is behind you, on Monday they hang you out to dry. If members of the board resigned it was because of their sheer stupidity in throwing her under the bus.
However I've said it before, King is not stupid, you don't get to that level by being dumb. Any exec understands in an area of public opinion that these scenarios are possible.
40k over 12 months months is approx 3000 more a month. That's a comparable amount when you look at the annual salary.
The PP is correct. She did she job and apparently did it very well. The board made a contract with her, then threw her under the bus. The fact that it is a nonprofit has nothing to do with their contract. It's a job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk22
Actually, I'm not sure how it helps her as it appears she was paid more. Her salary was reported to be $264,000 or 40,000 more than the current CEO. That doesn't compare to a $2.1 million pension, which drew most of the outrage for excessive compensation for a non-profit organization CEO. I don't know if the current guy is getting an expense account, but I bet its not as much as King (who reportedly received $35,000 in expenses a year as well).
I hope that if she wins Bill Diehl uses his share to buy some shampoo and get a haircut! Have to agree with Chicago- his image does nothing to negate the "slimy" image his type of attorney has been saddled with.
40k over 12 months months is approx 3000 more a month. That's a comparable amount when you look at the annual salary.
The PP is correct. She did she job and apparently did it very well. The board made a contract with her, then threw her under the bus. The fact that it is a nonprofit has nothing to do with their contract. It's a job.
Sorry, I think I was tired and my math was off last night...I think your numbers are probably closer to reality. Either way, their base salaries seem comparable and I just don't see how race or gender has anything to do with this.
In the end, you are correct that the fact that the company was a nonprofit has nothing to do with the way that they negotiated and handled the contract. I won't argue about how she received the benefits or the fact that she seemed to to a good job. However given the nonprofit status and the nature of the United Way's job, her credibility and ability to lead the organization took a serious hit once the terms of her contract and pension came to light. That is the real problem here, not King's race or gender.
A nice article today in the Observer sums it up well:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/195/story/473136.html (broken link)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
